They have asked for no input from the gaming community as a whole as to what problems we'd like to see fixed. They have merely changed what they didn't like. So we get to play their house rules.
I'm prone to agree with this. My gut feeling is that claims about soliciting and heeding gamer opinions are patently untrue.
Does anyone know of any efforts WotC made to determine what customers liked, disliked, or wanted?
I'm aware of only one; I was one of the people they would periodically survey for the Dungeons & Dragons Advisory Panel. This was discontinued at the beginning of 2007, probably with the beginning of the 4/e design process. They asked me which which WotC products (books, minis, whatever) I bought and/or used, what kind of TV, movies, and books I was into, and what kind of online material was of interest or use to me (how coincidental).
There was never any information gathered regarding rules -- not how I played, not what rules I used or didn't use, not what races were desireable or not.
I've seen no evidence supporting their claim -- a claim they're obliged to make to successfully market 4/e, regardless of its accuracy. I might also add that WotC has repeatedly made clear the need to acquire new customers, and that this is a driving business priority -- by their own admission, the preferences of the existing client base are secondary.
Two more cents :)
PS I'm not bashing the game -- I still think it'll be good. But I don't believe everything I'm being told. Not even close.
Well, I'm sure they browse their own message boards, talk to people at conventions, browse other boards (maybe here, or EnWorld?), get mail from fans (or angry gamers), etc etc.
They didnt ask my opinion either, but that doesnt mean that they didnt do their homework.
Well, I'm sure they browse their own message boards, talk to people at conventions, browse other boards (maybe here, or EnWorld?), get mail from fans (or angry gamers), etc etc.
They didnt ask my opinion either, but that doesnt mean that they didnt do their homework.
Fair enough, but my gut (right or wrong) tells me otherwise.
Trust your gut, obey your thirst!
....obey your thirst!Mmmm....beer.
As a zombie, you're a disappointment.
I'd have expected "Mmmm....brain juices" or "Mmmm....blood", but not "...beer" That's one step above those vegan zombies moaning "Graiiiins" all day long.
Personally, when it comes to thirst, I go for the Blood of Nations every time.
|
I recall saying that the people who hate 4th Edition are likely a very small minority. You keep rolling in as many personal attacks and derogoratory terms as you can muster, but the fact is that more people than just moronic kids who "only play WoW" are looking forward to it. People who have played D&D for a long, long time are looking forward to it.
I think that the main reason only long-time players ARE so angry is because they feel like that whatever strange traditions that "make D&D D&D" are being cast off. The fact is, D&D isnt perfect and adherence to whatever sacred cows you worship isnt necessarily a good thing. Its like, you hate the changes just because. You dont know how the game works, or what the bigger picture is. You just hear that, hey, the tiefling flavor text isnt the same thing its been for the past three Editions, HOW CAN THAT BE!
I'm not saying that 4th Edition is perfect, or will be, or that its going to be the greatest thing ever. From what I HAVE heard though, it sounds likes its definitely going to be a legup above 3rd Edition on several things.[ed- HUGE MAMBA_JAMBA OPINION]
Plenty of people here are just so stuck on some kind of circular hate-spewing trend and think that, no matter what Wizards has a universal dislike for you, and you, and reads these boards to find out what you like just so they can mess with you...because they want your money? I seriously doubt that many kids at all that play video games are going to suddenly break that habit and get into any sort of game off-screen.
Remember how the main point of my post was that you don't respect the opinions of those unhappy with 4ed? I think you just proved my point.
I might have been able to depict myself (and others that are anti 4ed) in a more derogatory fashion, but i think I'd need to consult a panel of middle school mean girls to hit the same level of snark and vitriol above.
Oh, I still think you may be a little confused about the difference between an opinion and fact.
(bold emphasis added by me to indicate unsupported opinions or combative text)
A note on gnomes - while I wish they were going to be in the PHB, they need a revision of sorts - there are too many people who hear the word "gnome" and are stuck with images of tinker gnomes and kooky inventions. In my opinion, they need to slide them back closer to the fey.
That was why the illustration of the gnome in the MM rocked! My first thought was "Finally! A gnome you could take seriously."
A note on gnomes - while I wish they were going to be in the PHB, they need a revision of sorts - there are too many people who hear the word "gnome" and are stuck with images of tinker gnomes and kooky inventions. In my opinion, they need to slide them back closer to the fey.That was why the illustration of the gnome in the MM rocked! My first thought was "Finally! A gnome you could take seriously."
Bah, gnomes have always rocked.
Wow, something we agree on!
Mmmm....beer.
As a zombie, you're a disappointment.
Nah -- he's just an equal-opportunity zombie.
|
|
....obey your thirst!Mmmm....beer.As a zombie, you're a disappointment.
I'd have expected "Mmmm....brain juices" or "Mmmm....blood", but not "...beer" That's one step above those vegan zombies moaning "Graiiiins" all day long.
Personally, when it comes to thirst, I go for the Blood of Nations every time.
I find you're comments both insulting and prejudicial. I'll have you know that not all zombies are flesh-munching, shuffling monsters. Some of us have rather refined palates, and are very cultured. I, for example, usually enjoy a quite evening at home consisting of some nice cognac as an apertif, followed by veal for dinner (or occasionally lamb), then an after-dinner Cuban cigar (I have connections) while listening to some Vivaldi – I prefer his operas such as Il Guistino and La fida ninfa.
I would appreciate if you could refrain from such childish and immature attacks on the habits of myself and my undead brethren.
Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology,
Incorrect. FR always used the Great Wheel - it was only changed in 3e (and it wasn't a popular change, either).
What did they change it to?Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology,Incorrect. FR always used the Great Wheel - it was only changed in 3e (and it wasn't a popular change, either).
The good planes are connected by a tree (Tree of Live or something), the evil ones by the River of Blood. The planes are different, too (though some things like the Abyss is still there).
For example, there's Dweomerheart, where Mystra (and other deities of magic) reside. The Demonweb Pits are now their own plane instead of just another layer of the Abyss. there's stuff like the Barrens of Doom and Despair, Brightwater, House of the Tryad.
Yggdrasil by any chance?
Yggdrasil by any chance?
That name isn't printed in the book (well, it is, but only between the lines). They only stole the concept, not the name (but I'm not quite sure on this)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For example, there's Dweomerheart, where Mystra (and other deities of magic) reside. The Demonweb Pits are now their own plane instead of just another layer of the Abyss. there's stuff like the Barrens of Doom and Despair, Brightwater, House of the Tryad.
You forgot the joint plane rules by Chauntea and Siamorphe, where the Binder occasionally visits.
The god of agriculture and the goddess of aristocracy have this plane, they serve coffee, it's nice and quiet...
Well, the problem for me is twofold. I've been reading this stuff. They're hardwiring the flavor into the mechanics and having racial weapons and armor for every race.
So if you don't like the flavor, you pretty much can't have the mechanics. Everyone is assuming this is going to be a toolkit. It isn't.
The issue solely rests on the fact that, regardless of how good or bad 4 e may truely be, Wizards fumbled the ball PR wise. They've been playing this bizarre cloak and daggers game since the Gen Con announcement, saying one thing and then doing another but claiming they are doing exactly what they said they were doing. This new "Publisher Developer Kit" only the latest issue. Originally, when asked if the new license would be split or tiered, they said no. They supported the OGL and all that blah blah.
But then they decide to release a "Publisher Development Kit" for $5,000. You don't have to buy it, but otherwise you can't even see the SRD until June and you can't get a copy of the OGL until then either.
I'm not arguing with their right to charge. I'm pointing out that, from a public relations standpoint, it all looks heavy-handed and a workaround of their original promise not to have a tiered license.
Wizards seems to have allowed their lawyers to handle their marketing, and it has made people distrustful of their intent.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I find myself agreeing with Bardsandsages, WotC seems almost schitzophrenic in their marketing. Since even the people who don't pay to play are going to be bound, somehow, to not releasing product until 010109, the OGL is going to have teeth of some sort. I'm expecting the ravenous pack of lawyers will have found someway to 'decouple' the OGL 1.0a from whatever this new OGL and SRD is to keep the more flexible OGL from being used on the new SRD.
I couldn't care less about a new edition, it happens. But there's a certain, slickness, to their actions, if not their marketing.
Wizards seems to have allowed their lawyers to handle their marketing, and it has made people distrustful of their intent.My theory is this: They haven't been lying.
I didn't say they were lying per se. I said they were allowing the legal dept. to control their marketing. None of the Wizards marketing has made an attempt to place their customers (both end-consumers and 3rd party publishers) at ease.
There is a right way and a wrong way to handle these things. Using the developer's kit as an example, the way it was presented drew a line in the sand, and actually can be construed as insulting to many independent publishers. It created an Us versus Them vibe among publishers. I can tell you that the list of publishers invited to that phone call did not include all publishers that requested information. And the wording of the Wizards release implied only the ones on the call had queried. If a PR person was handling the developer kit, it would have gone more like this...
"We appreciate the fact that many publishers need information about 4e in order to make long term plans. We value the support these publishers have provided to gamers, and want to facilitate their ability to produce quality products.
The complete SRD will be available to all publishers in June. Because we want to give our mutual customers time to learn the new system and adopt the rules, and avoid a glut of new products that can overwhelm the market at a time when players are still adjusting to the new system, we have added a stipulation to the OGL that asks that publishers refrain from producing supplemental material until January 2009.
"However, we also know many customers will want supplemental materials before that, and that quality supplemental materials can help players more readily adopt the new system. To that end, we have developed a special developer's kit for established publishers. This kit will provide publishers will the current rules, as well as access to errata and other changes that are made between now and the June release. In this way, we can ensure that publishers have the most accurate information.
Do to the costs associated with creating this kit and supporting publishers with current information as it is available, there is a one time fee of $5,000 for the kit. To compensate publishers further, those publishers that do obtain the kit will be able to release 4e materials in August."
Instead of creating an adversarial tone or implying some publishers aren't good enough, this would have added value to the developer kit. It's a different feel that the "We're trying to keep the riffraff out" that was done by Wizards.
Just a note: the above is NOT my best work. Just something quick as an example of how it could have been handled. The phone's been ringing none stop and interrupting my concentration!
|
They have asked for no input from the gaming community as a whole as to what problems we'd like to see fixed. They have merely changed what they didn't like. So we get to play their house rules.I'm prone to agree with this. My gut feeling is that claims about soliciting and heeding gamer opinions are patently untrue.
Does anyone know of any efforts WotC made to determine what customers liked, disliked, or wanted?
Sort of. Remember the Design and Development blogs after GenCon 2006? David Noonan went around without his WotC shirt on and spied on folks playing in the D&D tournaments. He had his handy-dandy notebook, and everytime someone stumbled on a rule, or said "that's not fun" or otherwise whined a little, he'd write it down.
I have various degrees of opinion on how assinine this is for professional market research or how the true roleplaying home experience differs from con games, but I've said plenty here. :-)
Other than that, yeah, they're telling us how stuff is broken because they don't like it and they're fixing it. It's their chance to make a change in D&D, the way some politicians endlessly add on useless amendments to stuff to get their name in.
-DM Jeff
|
|
I am curious why it is that people perceive WotC's marketing campaign as being driven by their legal department?
Probably because lawyers, rightly or wrongly, have a reputation for being fiendish half-dragon dungeonborn villains. And people can't imagine that professional marketers would mess up as badly as the WotC marketers have messed up.
Personally I think the problem (and I'm speaking with no inside knowledge whatsoever) seems to be the result of hiring people outside of the gaming community to conduct the marketing campaign - People with little or no respect for the closeknit nature of the gaming design/writing/publishing community. Nor any respect for the players of the game for that matter.
|
|
Personally I think the problem (and I'm speaking with no inside knowledge whatsoever) seems to be the result of hiring people outside of the gaming community to conduct the marketing campaign. People with no respect for the closeknit nature of the gaming publishing community.
I just think there are too many voices. Between blogs, message board posts, articles on DDI, and podcasts there are a lot of people talking and each with a different point of view. If the marketing is going through a single source those people aren't unifying the "voice" of 4e.
On one hand, I think this tactic could give an idea that there are a diverse number of people working on the project thus providing a product that can appeal to many tastes. On the other it can seem like a cacophony emanating from a single point of origin which feels confusing and inconsistent.
I don't think the PR job has been abyssmal so far (IMO) but it could be tighter.
|
I am curious why it is that people perceive WotC's marketing campaign as being driven by their legal department?Probably because lawyers, rightly or wrongly, have a reputation for being fiendish half-dragon dungeonborn villains. And people can't imagine that professional marketers would mess up as badly as the WotC marketers have messed up.
Personally I think the problem (and I'm speaking with no inside knowledge whatsoever) seems to be the result of hiring people outside of the gaming community to conduct the marketing campaign - People with little or no respect for the closeknit nature of the gaming design/writing/publishing community. Nor any respect for the players of the game for that matter.
Yep. That could be it. My experience with legal departments is that they don't want marketing to say anything at all. People might sue.
|
Well I won't say hate. I was all about waiting and seeing how things turned out. Now though I just finished reading the "preview" of the New Realms and so far I am really hating it. The rest of 4e may end up fine but the Realms seems trashed so bad that I have no desire to ever play there again.
*sigh* Well here is to hoping something good makes it through.
My theory is this: They haven't been lying.
I don't care a bit about it: They said one thing and did another. I don't care whether some evil suit forced them to render many of their previous statements false, I just see that you can't believe anything anyone at wizards said, because apparently the company doesn't care what they said (I don't care for single persons, either. When they're on a con or press conference or something like that, they speak for the company. If someone else in the company then decides not to honour what other people have told their customers, I will hold it against the company as a whole), and I have to assume that it will happen in the future.
For example, scott rouse said that there won't be a 4.5e. I don't care a bit whether he meant it, was lying, or using weaselese meaning "there will be a revised 4e in 3 years, but we won't call it 4.5e, so technically, I haven't lied". Because it's possible, maybe even likely, that somebody else a couple of years down the line will think: "We need more profit, those revisions seem to generate bigger profit than those other books we keep releasing, so I don't give a flying f what that guy said, we're doing 4.5e, now!"
The reasons don't matter. The intentions don't matter. It's the deeds, and how they compare to what was said.
For centuries, we believed there were exactly nine planets, with the smallest being Pluto. A few years back, the "official statement" came out that there might be, IIRC, 11 planets, and Pluto was not one of them.
Sorry about this everyone, but my inner nit-picker couldn't let that pass. Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, and Neptune in 1846 so it's fairer to say that for centuries we believed there were exactly seven planets - and even that was only for the few centuries after Hershel named Uranus in 1781. Before telescopes most everybody only recognized the five naked-eye planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn...
Nitpickers unite! :)
That official announcement established that there are eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. The new category of dwarf planet was also introduced -- Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet, newly-discoverd Eris is one, and the largest asteroid Ceres also qualified (so it was promoted).
So there are eight planets and three (currently-known) dwarf planets, for a grand total of 11 (Pluto is among those).
|
|
Do these planets have axes and Scottish accents?The new category of dwarf planet was also introduced -- Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet, newly-discoverd Eris is one, and the largest asteroid Ceres also qualified (so it was promoted).
I don't know if they have wicked axes but they all wield mean axis
First off let me state, I WILL buy the three core books for 4E.
Now on the things that I have started to hate are a few and I really don’t feel like looking for the exact thread or interview where my information was gathered. If I can be proven wrong on any of them then that is wonderful.
My major problem is that they have specifically left things out of the first core books so they can be put in later ones. This was specifically stated about gnomes along with a few minor things I cannot remember of the top of my head.
Another problem I have is that they said when 3.5 was in the works things they found worked wonderfully were left out on purpose as well because they would be better for their 4th edition that they had in mind.
But the biggest thing I find hard to swallow is as much as they tried saying in all their big seminars that “Ze game will remain ze same!” is a load. Many people on RD have stated that you should finish your 3.X games because it is nigh impossible to convert. Stats will be totally different. Magic system will be new as well.
But again no matter the things I hate I will buy the books, and I will play it with at least one of my gaming groups just like I will continue to play 1st, 2nd, and 3.X with other groups.
My major problem is that they have specifically left things out of the first core books so they can be put in later ones.
... or on their Website which you have to subscribe to and pay for. And, let me repeat that once again, is like totally not required to play the new and oh so much better D&D.
On related news, windscreen wipers are no longer standard for cars. You can totally drive without them. The engine starts up, the pedals work, and so does the steering wheel.
But the biggest thing I find hard to swallow is as much as they tried saying in all their big seminars that “Ze game will remain ze same!” is a load.[...]
But again no matter the things I hate I will buy the books
wizards needs customers like you :P
Vote with your wallet, man. Show them that you're disgusted by their doings.
Wait. There's a 4th edition?
I'm joking of course but how many gamers are there who will become aware of 4th Edition when the books first appear in the shops?
Why do we need 4th Edition? What in 3.5 is broken? Are these addressed in 4E?
My main gripe is that the 4E core rules no longer support my setting of choice (Eberron). I therefore see no reason to change.
I've already said my piece, as have lots of people more eloquent than me, but...
Why do we need 4th Edition? What in 3.5 is broken? Are these addressed in 4E?
We don't need it. WotC needs it, to keep the line profitable. I'm not criticizing, but I think it's useful to ignore their marketing claims.
So it's not not broken. I do think there's room for improvement, though, and IMO WotC seems to be addressing those things well.
My main gripe is that the 4E core rules no longer support my setting of choice (Eberron). I therefore see no reason to change.
This is my gripe, too. While I keep flip-flopping on this, chances are my group won't be making the transition. This is the first new edition that has abandoned any meaningful attempts at maintaining compatibility with past settings and content. IMO they've consciously decided that keeping the existing customer base is, at best, a secondary consideration (this is supported by some statements WotC has made).
|
|
Why do we need 4th Edition? What in 3.5 is broken? Are these addressed in 4E?
From what I can see many of the shortcomings of 3E are being addressed. Not everyone agrees that there are problems with 3E but for those of us that are having problems with the system 4E is a ray of hope. If 4E sucks then its on to other games for me.
My main gripe is that the 4E core rules no longer support my setting of choice (Eberron). I therefore see no reason to change.
Its only a matter of time before the 4E version of Eberron arrives. I believe it was 2009 but I could be wrong.
I have to add how pathetic it is the YouTube vid kept the message that the gnomes are idiots no one knows what to do with, and the tiefing are sexy demon chicks that will sell books. Coincidence the half orc is gone? They did the same thing with the drow back in the day.
A couple of days ago I asked the proprietor of my most regular haunt about what interest his customers have shown in 4E, he told me he hasn't heard many mentions of it. He did predict that WotC's switch to internet 'magazine' content would have a seriously deleterious effect on his sales, but that's hardly rocket science.
I don't know what this guys's sales are, but most gaming stores I've been in didn't have that many copies of Dungeon or Dragon on the shelf -- and the profit on each is going to be fairly small.
Though it would reduce the number of people that come in to browse that might go on to buy something that catches their eye. I couldn't begin to guess how much sales this could be.
IMO :)